Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 25, 2013


One wonders how much international condemnation such reports would (rightfully) provoke if they would read like this:
Hotline lets callers inform on Germanic-Jewish couples

A right-wing, anti-assimilation organization that campaigns to prevent Jewish men from dating Germanic women has opened a hotline enabling members of the public to inform on women so that they can be persuaded to end the relationship.

When called, a recording on the Flamme hotline says the service is meant to “save the daughters of Germania.” In addition to offering support for women, the line also provides the names and telephone numbers of Jewish men that the organization suspects of dating Germanic women.

Bundeswehr soldier passes IDs of Germanic girls who socialize with Jews to anti-assimilation NGO

A female Bundeswehr soldier who is often stationed at checkpoints is apparently very disturbed by the fact that some Germanics and Jews actually hang out. The soldier turned anonymously (on Facebook) to Hand of Brothers a religious organization whose mandate is to “save Germanics from assimilation,” in the hopes they can help her prevent this from happening in the future by talking some sense into these young women.

Posted by b on September 25, 2013 at 12:36 UTC | Permalink


This is just one example of israel and zionists preaching and trying to enforce one behaviour to the world while doing the opposite themselves.

Ceterum censeo israel delendum esse.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 25 2013 12:50 utc | 1

The Italians are trying to compete

Posted by: Mina | Sep 25 2013 13:06 utc | 2

Miscegenation is the undoing of hard-shell right wing movements. As the working class is increasingly immiserated in the Unites States, one positive development is a broad-based -- at least in metropolitan areas -- racial tolerance among the youth. I don't think is something that can be undone by elites with lots of cash.

Posted by: Mike Maloney | Sep 25 2013 13:18 utc | 3

I believe the title of the link should be in capital letters: IDF SOLDIER PASSES IDs OF JEWISH GIRLS WHO SOCIALIZE WITH ARABS TO ANTI-ASSIMILATION NGO

As a matter of fact it should be posted on an electronic billboard in the heart of Manhattan.

Yesterday, the Nobel Prize "laureate", Obie, referenced and insisted on Israel, the "Jewish" State, while addressing the UN; but then he's the same twit who had the nerve to reference MLK and Gandhi in the same breadth as WAR=PEACE while accepting that "Peace" prize and then proceeded to enhance the drone program three-fold. We can always count on Obie to set the "right" example!

Oh and here's another example of his "great" judgment.:

Posted by: kalithea | Sep 25 2013 14:06 utc | 4

3) It is obviously nature's solution to a lot of problems. Actually "miscegenation" is the wrong word in this case. Racism also. It is sectarianism.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 25 2013 15:38 utc | 5

The Zionist lies about Judaism being a race are inherent in the two pieces b references above. Grammatically/rationally correct headlines would have been:

"Hotline lets callers inform on Jewish-Muslism/Non-Jewish couples."

"IDF soldier passes IDs of Jewish girls who socialize with Muslim/Non-Jewish men to anti-assimilation NGO."

Judaism is NOT an ethnicity no matter how much Zionists want us to believe that is so.

The only antisemitism is the racism exhibited against Arabs.

By trying to equate Jews with Arabs, the Zionists from the beginning have created an entire framework based upon lies.

I mean, you'd think that since the idea of Judaism as a race was the basis for the much-remembered Holocaust that modern Jews would like to correct such obviously erroneous thinking so that such occurrence never happened again, huh? Oh well.

Lastly, this same line of reasoning also goes for people who buy into the whole "if your mother is a Jew then you're Jewish" nonsense.

Um, hello?, that's only valid if you are an adherent of Judaism and believe in such asininities.

The only way out of this nonsense is to not communicate using the words of Zionist nonsense.

For those Americans who remember the SAT analogies:

Jew::Muslim NOT Jew::Arab

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 25 2013 16:19 utc | 6

In an ethnically-religiously defined State, the Pure against the Powerful forces who are considered to be racial scum, alarms about contacts of various types are always on *high* alert.

Anyone who transgresses the line and fraternizes is a traitor.

(Exceptions not treated here.)

As talk about women - and controlling them, their dress, work, trips, hobbies, child rearing practices - etc. is an easy appeal to patriarchy, or more pertinently the State’s interest and their capacity to control one or another demographic, e.g. school children, via various discriminatory moves.

Remember, some time past Isr, had this sex surprise thing in da news, that Arab men who had sex with isr. women and did not tell her he was Arab could be condemned for rape under some ‘false pretense‘ rubric. Independent of consensus on the spot or anything else.


The crime of course is not sex (about which nobody cares except for shaming etc.) but presumed imposture.

Most discriminatory moves in Isr. come from the public, as they understand completely on which side their bread is buttered, extreme example are US settlers.

Upright Isr. citizens object to ‘black’ kids (Ethiopia, Sudan,...) In kindergarten, age 3, because they ‘drag the level’ down, just like in the US with ‘blacks‘ and ‘hispanics.‘ So the black kids are thrown out to another poorer or non existent structure. Which could not happen in California, as of now, so it is YYAH! Israel.

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 25 2013 16:48 utc | 7

Within Judaism there are separate groups that could qualify as "ethnicities" - Ashkenazim (the majority of US Jews are Ashkenazim, as were the original Zionist terrorists that setup Israel) Sephardic, Mitzrahim Felashim etc for example.

That's the big dirty seekrit of Judaism - it's not one Ethnic group at all, but several different ones, hidden under the label "Jewish". And Israeli society reflects these "ethnic" divisions quite clearly

Sephardic or Mitzrahim could easily qualify as "Semitic" - but Ashkenazim? Not a chance, and the bulk of the worlds Jewish Population is Ashkenazi

Posted by: hmm | Sep 25 2013 17:00 utc | 8

8) yep, sectarianism, like in Catholic, Protestant, Shiite, Sunni ...

Posted by: somebocy | Sep 25 2013 17:03 utc | 9

The way I see it, Judaism attempts to construct its followers as a 'race'. That is, it contains a multitude of precepts and precedents aimed at coercing the individual into marrying another follower, and very preferably one who is the offspring of previous followers, rather than a new convert. The aim is to consolidate a hereditary body of followers, which will in effect become a 'race', progressively insulating itself more and more perfectly from genetic contamination by outsiders. There is also a ferocious snobbery of descent: the elite Jew of the old style can trace his ancestors back for anything up to ten generations, usually of rabbinical family, thus producing a surrogate nobility of birth within the more undistinguished mass of the Jewish people, thus reinforcing inbreeding by example -- as with other nations, including my own (the English).

But Judaism is the national religion, in that it starts from a book purporting to be the history of a nation, rather than a race. The bible does not and cannot start from an explicitly racial hypothesis, since the attainment of distinct status as a race (indeed, the master race) is the aim of the religion, not its origin. In the same way, Italian fascism, confronted by the racial rhetoric of its German ally on the one hand, and the obvious fact that the Italian people (or nation) contains many visibly different gene pools, resolved that 'racial' status should be an aim of the nation. It did not claim already to constitute an 'Italian race' which would have been absurd. The German official ideology of the Nazi period did make this mistake, proclaiming that it was the ideology of the 'German race' when again one could see very easily that the German nation was composed of many different and still distinguishable gene pools.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 25 2013 18:02 utc | 10

as usual you spectacularly missed the point,

well done.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 25 2013 18:03 utc | 11

above for @9

Posted by: hmm | Sep 25 2013 18:04 utc | 12

12) you mean it is something special, not like the rest of humanity :-))? //irony

Posted by: somebody | Sep 25 2013 18:12 utc | 13

spoken like a true zio-supremacist

Posted by: hmm | Sep 25 2013 18:21 utc | 14

14) did you?

Posted by: somebody | Sep 25 2013 18:27 utc | 15

If the majority have closed off their gene pool from different races aren't they then a "different" race?
I think it's the culture and the language that are important. People are free to choose who they want to be with. In some areas of South America some whites refuse to mix with mestizos who lean more towards the indigenous than the European and then you have mestizos who refuse to mix with Mulatos who lean more towards the African?
Is that racism or preference? Blurred lines, no ?

Posted by: Fernando | Sep 25 2013 19:35 utc | 16

Humans aren't even fully human. The race contruct is so absurd and 2nd millenium.

Posted by: L Bean | Sep 25 2013 19:47 utc | 17

@3 Mike Maloney

As the working class is increasingly immiserated in the Unites States, one positive development is a broad-based -- at least in metropolitan areas -- racial tolerance among the youth. I don't think is something that can be undone by elites with lots of cash.

Yes, positive trends in society are difficult to come by nowadays, but I too have noticed the racial tolerance among my 22 yr old son and his friends.

Posted by: sleepy | Sep 25 2013 22:28 utc | 18

This is why the idea of an Israel walled off from its neighbors will never last. It is inhuman.

But this is nothing new really, it is what fascists do. It's just one more indication of the how far down the path Israel is towards its own self-immolation.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 26 2013 0:37 utc | 19

Do the israeli elite promote this stuff? Or does it come from other directions, because the disgusting chauvinism seems to permeate all of their society.

@8 hmm

What do you think of thesis popular in lots of ME media that Ashkenazi are descendants of Khazars who migrated to Spain during the time of the caliphate, and then to deep east Europe?

It seems so fanciful that it could be true.

Posted by: Crest | Sep 26 2013 0:57 utc | 20

Thats not the khazar theory that I know of.

The khazar theory is that the khazars simply migrated west ahead of the Golden Horde, no detour via spain at all. I Think it is the only theory that makes sense, and modern day genetics seem to confirm it.

Arthur Koestler wrote about it in his book "The 13th Tribe" which can be read free online by clicking that link.

One will of course be accussed of "anti-semitism" just for mentioning the Khazar theory

Posted by: hmm | Sep 26 2013 1:50 utc | 21

What's the difference between an Ayran supremacist and a Jewish supremacist?

- They're just as bad, except that one hides behind his religion and victimhood and gets away with his crimes.

Posted by: kalithea | Sep 26 2013 2:21 utc | 22

22) should read Aryan not Ayran

Posted by: kalithea | Sep 26 2013 2:23 utc | 23

Ay ran home and went wah wah wah!!!
It's ok we understood you ;)

Posted by: Fernando | Sep 26 2013 4:18 utc | 24

re the khazar theory
Then there are Shlomo Sand's more recent works, Invention of the Jewish People and Invention of the Land of Israel. I have read neither but both have been well reviewed.

Posted by: bevin | Sep 26 2013 14:06 utc | 25

@8, 21

Certainly, you are correct in all of those points - the various "ethnicities", the Khazar theory, etc - but at the end of the day - and to avoid Zionist hair-splitting/navel-gazing - I tend to look at what words mean today in a modern sense and how they are used by a majority of people.

Thus, when I'm told that I have to treat the question of Jewish ethnicity differently because by THEIR definitions THEY have determined that they are this or that, I immediately turn to the question: why?

Why does the rest of the world - especially the Western world on which Israel leans upon for existence - have to bend and reshape their understanding of ethnicity for this group when 1) it inherently doesn't make sense and 2) it leads to hosts of geopolitical difficulties (which is ultimately the Zionist goal, but I digress).

So, when people speak to the various "ethnicities", Khazars and like topics I immediately hear warning bells that I'm being drawn into a debate which has nearly inescapable Zionist parameters by which I mean the fact of engaging in the debate inevitably lends credence to all of the pseudo-historical justifications that Zionists have used to illegally steal land and subjugate others.

In my view, the hallmark of the modern propaganda is the "false debate" and by this I mean, the creation of "debates" that really aren't meant to be engaged in to discover answers or truth but are created simply to lend credence to topics that otherwise wouldn't survive the light of reason.

Nobody would be debating (said topic) if there wasn't some merit to BOTH sides, right? Very clever.

Every political issue in America has been tossed into the "false debate" hopper and now the parameters of the "false debates" have entirely replaced any forms of the real debates on issues the populace should be having about their governance and lives.

So, before being drawn down into the details of a debate of Zionist making - and I used to, mind you - I stop myself and ask why am I forfeiting my general understanding of how the world works to entertain notions that don't make sense? Because someone tells me I HAVE to? Hmmm, that's weird.

As you allude to, certainly one could engage in the detailed history of a people - as one could with ANY ethnicity - but that's not really the point of what the vast majority of people are trying to get at it when they discuss this issue, right?

I hope you don't think I'm criticizing you or wanting to engage in a debate. I just wanted to respond to you posts yesterday to explain myself better but was not able to.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 26 2013 14:38 utc | 26

well, maybe you should read them. Then you might even manage to have something interesting to say about them.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 26 2013 14:40 utc | 28

oh oh. ...hmm(m) is still on library duty....

Posted by: dh | Sep 26 2013 14:54 utc | 29

yeah, actually reading books. That's, like, the worst crime ever.

re:27 Nice to see you on Google C&P duty today, Zina.

What happened? did zomebody phone you up and ask you to fill-in?

Posted by: hmm | Sep 26 2013 15:09 utc | 30

JS I agree; aside of the specifics, the problem is whether it does make sense to talk of a "Jewish people" in any possible ethnical sense; of course not, and Shlomo Sand's work, cited by bevin, is dedicated to the deconstruction of such a concept (from the diaspora onwards)

the whole Zionist project rests instead on such a concept; its the only way you can conceive a "right to return" for some (turning back a couple of thousand years) and not others (ethnically cleansed a few decades ago, and continuing)

Posted by: claudio | Sep 26 2013 15:11 utc | 31

and Shlomo Sand's work, cited by bevin, is dedicated to the deconstruction of such a concept (from the diaspora onwards)

a central point of Sands work is that there really was/is no 'diaspora", in the sense of an exile population expelled from a geographical place.

Sand is adamant that there was no scattering event, no "expulsion", to begin with. These accepted histories of Judaism are all nonsense

Since there was no "expulsion" the whole notion of a "diaspora" (allegedly a result of the non-existent "expulsion") is pure nonsense.

said it in the book.

Probably why people should read it.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 26 2013 15:19 utc | 32

which I mean the fact of engaging in the debate inevitably lends credence to all of the pseudo-historical justifications that Zionists have used to illegally steal land and subjugate others.

Actually that's what would not happen. Both Sand's work and Koestler's completely negate the main pillars in the Zionist/Jewish claims to have a right to steal from palestinians -

Jews could not be "returning" to Palestine because

1) They were never expelled in the first place
2) The ancestors of most of them never set foot anywhere near Palestine and are for the most parts descended from converts

Posted by: hmm | Sep 26 2013 15:27 utc | 33

"the deconstruction of such a concept (from the diaspora onwards)" means that the diaspora is the first to be deconstructed

hmm, you seem tired, you should take a rest
this job at Hasbara Watch is stressing, isn't it?

Posted by: claudio | Sep 26 2013 15:59 utc | 34

Reading too much David Foster Wallace I reckon.

Posted by: dh | Sep 26 2013 16:03 utc | 35

The point of my argument was that if you abandon the idea, which I might as well call 'vulgar racism', that your favoured race, whatever it is, is the origin of your favoured nation's history; and instead you decide that racism is about constructing a 'race' as a future goal, the reverse of postulating it as a primeval origin, then you have what I now can't resist calling 'sophisticated racism'. And assuming this is your purpose, to exalt your favoured nation in this way, by developing it into a race -- doubtless a master race, otherwise why bother -- then you will do better because you will not be forced to waste time defending the primeval past of your dreamed-of and hoped-for race, which obviously never existed and so is impossible to defend. And this was the mistake of the Nazis. I'm being quite amoral and machiavellian here, not pausing to consider the morality of it all, and just giving advice to the hypothetical, would-be successful racial leader, like Machiavelli gave advice to his hypothetical, would-be successful Prince. And who's to say Machiavelli wasn't being subtly satirical in doing so? by the way, I have a wonderful quote from Nietzsche about this. It comes from a long unpublished Preface to The Birth of Tragedy addressed to Richard Wagner:

As to the master-classes in particular, the future of German culture is found to lie with the sons of Prussian officers. Who shall be found to be worthy mates for them? The Jews are the oldest and purest race in Europe. Their continued existence as a race after dispersion proves their health and strength. Therefore the highest beauty is found in Jewesses.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 26 2013 16:26 utc | 36

@31 32

I'm familiar with Sand's work and others, I just woke up one day and asked myself: why in the hell have I - a non-Jew - spent so much freaking time wasted on this nonsense? Why do I know so much about this one group of people and why can't I seemingly escape this endless "debate"? Stupid waste of time.

That's why I don't reference some of points/books hmmm makes anymore, I'm done with this silliness and to be done with it you just have to not engage on specific levels at times. I attempting to stake our a position "above" the whole "false debate".

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 26 2013 16:35 utc | 37

Sorry, I'm simply not willing to play the jewish seek and hide games or the variety of catch me games any longer.
The very fact that *way too often* discussions about arbitrary jewish demands and lies take place is already too much of a tribute to pay to them.

I'm willing to accept the common definition of "jewish" as followers of a certain religion; Furthermore I'm willing to ignore their blunt and stupid "chosen people" fairy tales as it seems that something similar seems to have tainted most religous beliefs.
They want their own culture, not eating this or that, preferrably marrying jews, etc.? I don't care as long as that stays within legal and commonly established social boundaries. May they happily go to their synagogues and pray or whatever.

They want their own country? No way! And I don't care batshit whether they think that some piece of earth was theirs 2000 years ago.
If they want it that way they won't get anything neither because then "their" land would belong to the Italians ("Romans").
israel has no right to exist, nor did it legally come into existence, nor does it legally exist, nor is it "jewish"; it's simply a criminal abomination.

They want to not be hated? Well, the solution is simple: Behave decently and you won't be hated.
They want to not be driven out from any place? Same simple solution: Behave decently, don't grab or rob more than your fair share and you won't be driven out.

And one more thing: Stop lying and forcefeeding your dirty lies down peoples throats - or else avoid being close to lamp posts ...

Ceterum censeo israel delendum esse.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 26 2013 16:51 utc | 38

Meant to say:

I am attempting to stake out a position "above" the whole "false debate".

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 26 2013 16:53 utc | 39

RB, your line of thought is interesting; in good measure, it makes explicit what's often implicit in many forms of what you call "sophisticated racism" - but I prefer the term "identitarism";

also Atzmon, in "The Wondering Who?" refers to Zionism as a form of "identity politics", and explores in good depth the concept of "identity", especially as applied to politics

I would downright define all "identities" as "a useful (to some) political invention"

all modern nations where largely founded on a variant of identity politics, the romantic mythologization of "the people" (of "some people", that is), especially through their language and poets

also the connection you make of "sophisticated racism" with "master race" is significant; identity politics is always directed against "someone else", otherwise - justly - why bother?

the most important identitarism in modern times is that tied to "western civilization" and its racist underlyings: first the distinction between whites and colored people (savages, fanatics, etc), then the one between Europeans and Asians (fatalistic, lazy), then the one between Aryians and Semites (treacherous, cowards, etc); once operative, these distinctions are never recanted; and of course all of them are totally baseless

but the important part is that at every stage, such distinctions were produced as part of new projects of colonial domination, and "science" (anthropology, history, biology, archeology, linguistics, etc) dutifully followed; so the "white master race" has at every stage been developing project always returning to the past for updated myths

Posted by: claudio | Sep 26 2013 19:00 utc | 40

Well, I've been reading while drunk again... forgive me for being self-indulgent, but since the topic of this thread is Nazis - this time in Israel - I think this is fitting.

I've been comparing/contrasting Mailer's "Armies of the Night" (a autobiographical novel about a march on the Pentagon in 1968) with the street fighting sequences from "Mein Kampf".

Hitler was a polished thug. Like a Bush or an Obama or a Netanyahu - incorruptible just by the simple fact that their own corruption was so utterly complete. These are the respectable men who all with something to lose can (no, must) stand behind as the world closes in around them - These are the winners... until they lose, taking everything with them. But look close behind and you always see that crassness - a Goering or an Avigdor Lieberman or a John McCain - the corpulent vulgarity waiting there, drooling at the chance for power.

Hitler, who made a lot of heat yet never managed to be anything more than your common thug and fascist (soon to be forgotten), pulled a thrill off of beating up old men and women at the union hall. A gang of wolves set upon the lambs. Hitler's thugs had attacked men after a long days at work, taking endless shit form the boss for nothing more than the love of their children. Where is the difference between that and what these scumbags in Israel would do - to attack two lovers who want nothing more than to be with one another?

Just as the United States does in our world today, in Iran, No! North Korea! Turn around and over there Venezuela! like a corrupt and bloody game of whack-a-mole... These fascists throw fists at all that surrounds them, at whatever they find that they do not "like" - just provided they think themselves superior. But these though guys, though... they're not so bright... where do they think it will end? Do they think they will beat the last bit of dignity out of the last man who hate them? Do they think they will kill every pair of lovers... and do they have the slightest clue of what may happen if they do?

No, they are fighting a battle that - for all the pain they inflict and for all the horror they cause and all the evil the bring invest into their children - they can never ever win.

In "Armies of the Night" Mailer and company walk instead straight into the certain heart of that same fascist darkness, the center of US power, the Pentagon. That is still today's fascist fort (with all its tentacles from London, Tokyo to Tel Aviv) that strikes out against all but is, and will forever be attacked from all sides and forever. As will be attacked whatever is so foolish and greedy as to try and take its place.

We are still in the Vietnam era and will be for as long as I can see. It is no longer about nations - this is the global civil war. For every head these fascists remove, for every young man or woman whose mind they poison, for every weapon they invent (even those named after the victims of their previous genocides), for every concentration camp they build, for every televised lie and for every innocent they kill be it a child with poison gas or two lovers hand in hand - they will always be besieged by every person with a heart beat and a mind to know the most glaringly obvious of facts - that anyone who would act in such a way are scumbags meant to be stared down (if mercy so pleads) or destroyed (should justice insist).

Fuck these fascists, fuck these liars, fuck these corrupt, soulless monsters. No matter how many they kill, justice will always have them surrounded. Their position at the center is just what keeps them in the rest of our sights.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 27 2013 4:21 utc | 41

guest77, I hope you'll read this comment, it's so overtime ...

I appreciate your analysis and comments in general, but as far as indignation goes the problem is that we must confront "goodness", not "evil", so hate and fury are misplaced. Contempt for irresponsibility, cowardice and greed, ok, but of course that's not what you had in mind

Hitler desired only the best for his Germans, and was protecting them from "contamination", corruption and decline in a racial competition. Obama is intimately convinced he is fighting for the Good of Humanity against Evil, and so were Bush, Tatcher, etc. Even a cynic like Cheney, I'm sure, thinks that Us capitalism is a superior form of life that guarantees freedom for all, and prosperity for all those who deserve it.

A lot of others are faithful to the group or the organization they belong to (they "follow orders", and this isn't evil in itself)

So hate isn't helpful, it's just a measure of frustration over our incapacity to build an inclusive political project founded on equality, respect, dignity, etc

Our enemies are "identity politics" (see my #40) based on exclusion and suprematism and therefore tend to dehumanize both its proponents and the "others"; and abstract universalisms, that gloss over real differences and are profoundly intolerant

As for Zionism, well ... it would seem there's evil there, but only because it's essentially an anachronism: they are a remnant of the late XIXth century crisis of Europan civilization; they perpetuate all the "political sins" that were stigmatized after WW2: racism, bellicism, colonialism, etc, but that once were mainstream; only the grievous support of the winners of WW2 for the state of Israel could breath life into this Frankenstein-like creature well into the 21st century

I feel like sharing these thoughts with you because one of the things I appreciate most of your posts is your optimism towards collective political action, which I also consider always possible; but moralism weakens collective effort, is self-referential and consolatory;

Posted by: claudio | Sep 27 2013 22:17 utc | 42

You are right that extremist forms of identity politics surely mean the death of humanity. How can we live without one another. A revolution against one another as people - man/woman, black/white, gay/straight - will only lead to disaster.

I don't agree though that there is no place for morals or moralism (real morals, like "treat others as you'd want to be treated" not "no fucking on sunday" or whatever the hell else some popes and preachers can come up with) because I think it is tightly bound to justice, and without justice there is... as the saying goes ... no peace - and further more I'd say that without justice you have nothing at all that deserves the name civilization.

There is one revolution that can be carried out to the full - no must - if we are ever to sustain a "political project founded on equality, respect, dignity" and that is the overthrow of that other competing program: the one that concentrates wealth and power into the hands of the few whose interest is to keep the rest of the world at each others throats and while they "have what is worth having".

Please, don't confuse my bit of drunken righteous anger for hatred, and I won't confuse your meekness with moral weakness.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 28 2013 2:21 utc | 43

but all in all it was humorless and self important to be sure. That's no way to live - for too long anyway.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 28 2013 2:34 utc | 44

guest77, ok you expressed yourself very well

Posted by: claudio | Sep 28 2013 7:54 utc | 45

The comments to this entry are closed.